| Abstract: | This commentary responds to Celia Kitzinger and Sue Wilkinson's argument for the use of human rights discourse rather than a discourse of mental health when arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Without disagreeing with their basic argument, I "problematize" it, showing that legal and human rights discourses also have a history of reinforcing power dynamics and operating to the disadvantage of marginalized groups such as lesbians and gay men. First, equality rights discourse can force lesbians and gay men into a conservative mode of argument, for instance, having to show how similar they are to traditionalist opposite-sex couples, rather than emphasizing potentially significant differences. Second, the increasing use of rights discourse has arguably narrowed the scope of the lesbian/gay social movement and rendered its political strategies more conservative, rather than aiming for the elimination of heterosexism and patriarchy. Third, the focus on marriage as a human right tends to render invisible, and to reinscribe, the extent to which marriage as a socio-legal institution has operated in oppressive ways. Modern marriage is not innocent of oppression, tied as it is to the increasing privatization of social and economic responsibilities. While human rights discourse offers an important avenue for lesbians and gay men, the perils of its use should not be overlooked. |
